Religion.............

[modernnihilst]

modernnihilst,

I'm glad you qualified your statement with "most likely." When it comes to historical science, the scientific method is useless. As far as the scientific practice used in a lab, let's wait a few years until scientists change their statement of faith as can be witnessed by the change in our college text books over the years to know the truth.

- Davies

And dont I know it(working on my masters in history, history has changed since my bachelor degree 2 years ago) but I'm ok with waiting. the issue still remains we dont(as far as i could find out) have the origional texts of the Bible if that changes or the origionals come to light then one could say that an important peice of the puzzle has been put into place.the example of the scroll from the pyrimid however is invalid because the origional is present and can be(according to current methods) be verified.

 

[Davies]

... but I'm ok with waiting.

modernnihilst,

I have a couple of questions. You stated you're working on your masters degree in history, how can you trust the books that have been written in the past are written by who they claim, even if you have the originals? Does having the originals constitute truth? I don't think so. I think you have to take in account what is included in the text. Now, I don't have any degrees in Biblical criticism or on how we have the Bible, but I do know enough that what we have today varies little to what was written thousands of years ago. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a good example of confirmation for what's in the Bible. Also, taking into account the number of copies we have, full and partials, we have over 20,000. The Bible is the most authenticated book in history. You could theorize that only the counterfeits survived, and those were the ones copied. I don't think anyone would buy that. Then, you would have no basis, scientifically, to say they weren't written by who they claim. We need another method to determine that.

I don't know if you have enough time to wait.

- Davies

 

[modernnihilst]

for the ultimate truth, one could say that I will have to wait untill I die. If thats the case I'm willing to wait. Historically speaking most of what we know now is still up for debate as to the authenticity of the sources and documents relating to them. Especially in the field I study(Grecian history). However one could assert that being a Nihilist and a contributor on this site that I like a good debate:yes

 

[Aardverk]

I don’t wish to interrupt but can I pick up on a couple of points.

The scriptures, no, let’s just stay with the gospels. As everyone knows, the gospels were not ‘written’ down by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, they were written down many years later based, we presume, upon aural tradition. Such story tellers exist to this day. Go somewhere like Marrakesh and they squat in the market place telling precisely the same story with their apprentice learning the words precisely. So far, so good – we may have an accurate record.

‘Accuracy’ can, to an extent, be tested by comparing the gospels. Truth cannot similarly be tested. If there are differences in the gospels, we even have accuracy seriously challenged. There are differences, so accuracy is questionable. Are those differences a result of human error in the aural story telling? If so, where is the ‘word of God’ in this? Why was he not helping out those story tellers?

‘It’s the best documented book in the world’ or similar is often said but you would expect it to be wouldn’t you? What do you think was being destroyed by generations of Christians? Don’t you think that there were written ‘histories’ of dozens of other ‘gods’? Mithras for example. The fact that they have been destroyed but Christian documents have been preserved and copied proves absolutely nothing. It’s rather like a ‘holocaust’ of books – a final solution to the pagan gods. I am not a philologist but some philologists do claim that there are thousands and thousands of errors in bibles when comparing them to the earliest texts. Accuracy? Inspired by God? I wonder.

Who selected the texts – why, the bishops who had been using the texts all their lives. What else would anyone expect to be selected? Why had they been using them – because of their faith, not because of any sort of proof, just their faith. Those bishops who had differing beliefs were either defrocked, or had their priests defrocked, killed, exiled etc. Few dissenters were allowed to get away with it, not even the favourites of the Emperor’s mother and sister. So, was the selection inspired by God or by common sense? How about selecting those documents containing the least conflicts and the least dissenters? And then destroy the rest.

Inspired by God? Well, IF that first bible had remained as it was and everyone was now happily following that bible, I might just be tempted to believe it was something rather special. But we all know that the arguments started almost straight away on interpretation and on amendments to the bible. The different Christian factions re-emerged and inter faction fighting got under way once more leading, over the centuries, to awful, awful slaughter because your fellow man believed something slightly different. Today we have hundreds of different denominations, thousands probably, with no two people believing the same thing. Inspired by God? Which ones are being inspired? Is it you or him or her or them or us? It can’t be everyone, can it?

Davies, you used the words, ‘I believe’ and ‘I have faith’ and you used sober words of reason. I have great respect for your faith and for quiet reason but it is faith and it is only available to those who choose to have faith. If you do not choose to have faith, there is little to convince any impartial person that there is anything supernatural in the bible that is actually true. The history is fairly accurate but what of the rest, the bits that are not supported by independent historical sources? The same applies to any religion – the title of this thread.

 

[Davies]

If you do not choose to have faith, there is little to convince any impartial person that there is anything supernatural in the bible that is actually true. The history is fairly accurate but what of the rest, the bits that are not supported by independent historical sources?

Aardverk,

I would agree that if a person chooses to place his faith in something other than God, then there is nothing anyone could say, as well as what is offered in the Bible, to convince a person of the Christian claims. By choosing not to have faith in what the Bible says, the person indicates he's partial. Everyone has faith. If a person is an atheist, their faith says there is no God. Because a person who chooses not to have faith in Jesus, they will derive different conclusions from the Bible, and unless those presuppositions change, that person will be effectively locked out from hearing. These presuppositions need to be suspended to at least try and understand where the Christian is coming from.

As far as the accuracy of the Bible, the differences in versions, not to include modern day versions, is minimal. Even if a person argued that the differences are significant, the same message of redemption through Jesus by faith is still communicated, and the consistency of what we do have is nothing short of miraculous given the number of copies we have.

Christians don't depend on independent historical sources to corroborate the Bible, though I have to confess, I'm always excited to see the confirmation when it happens. Perhaps my faith is not as strong as I would like it to be. Christians, on the contrary, depend on the Bible to corroborate what's in the world. So, when we read about the miracles in the Bible, we know its different then what we observe today, but the existence of creation and its complexity is no different, in my opinion, then miraculous.

As Jesus said, "If anyone has an ear, let him hear." Rev. 13:9

- Davies

 

[Free]

The scriptures, no, let’s just stay with the gospels. As everyone knows, the gospels were not ‘written’ down by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, they were written down many years later based, we presume, upon aural tradition.

And it is part of that tradition, if I am not mistaken, that we have a good idea of who wrote the gospels, hence the names on them. Personally, I see no reason to not believe that the names on the gospels are of those who wrote them, including John the Apostle.

Such story tellers exist to this day. Go somewhere like Marrakesh and they squat in the market place telling precisely the same story with their apprentice learning the words precisely. So far, so good – we may have an accurate record.

Agreed. Being that most or all western nations are not oral cultures, the accuracy with which oral cultures could transmit traditions is completely lost on us.

‘Accuracy’ can, to an extent, be tested by comparing the gospels. Truth cannot similarly be tested. If there are differences in the gospels, we even have accuracy seriously challenged. There are differences, so accuracy is questionable. Are those differences a result of human error in the aural story telling? If so, where is the ‘word of God’ in this? Why was he not helping out those story tellers?

This argument is continually brought up and I really don't know why. It is an argument that the Christian cannot win. If there are differences, then the accuracy is called into question, and by extension, veracity. If the gospels were identical in their recollection of detail, if there were no differences, veracity would still be called into question as it would appear the writers just copied from one another or colluded to write some made up story.

What we have though are the same, and similar, stories with variation in some details--just what we should expect from eyewitness accounts.

I am not a philologist but some philologists do claim that there are thousands and thousands of errors in bibles when comparing them to the earliest texts. Accuracy? Inspired by God? I wonder.

The Bible is considered very accurate. Based on the thousands of texts available, quotes by early church fathers, etc., it can be determined with great accuracy what the original texts stated. Some say 99.6%,iirc.

Who selected the texts – why, the bishops who had been using the texts all their lives. What else would anyone expect to be selected? Why had they been using them – because of their faith, not because of any sort of proof, just their faith.

So, on the one hand you argue for the accuracy of oral tradition, but on the other seem to ignore that oral tradition could also include who wrote the books. Not to mention there were criteria used in selecting which books to be included.

Those bishops who had differing beliefs were either defrocked, or had their priests defrocked, killed, exiled etc. Few dissenters were allowed to get away with it, not even the favourites of the Emperor’s mother and sister.

While I don't necessarily agree with what was done, one must take into consideration the seriousness of error within theology and the need to maintain orthodoxy. You more or less argue to this down below but yet ignore it here.

So, was the selection inspired by God or by common sense?

Why the dichotomy, why not both?

Inspired by God? Well, IF that first bible had remained as it was and everyone was now happily following that bible, I might just be tempted to believe it was something rather special. But we all know that the arguments started almost straight away on interpretation and on amendments to the bible. The different Christian factions re-emerged and inter faction fighting got under way once more leading, over the centuries, to awful, awful slaughter because your fellow man believed something slightly different. Today we have hundreds of different denominations, thousands probably, with no two people believing the same thing. Inspired by God? Which ones are being inspired? Is it you or him or her or them or us? It can’t be everyone, can it?

Arguments started well before the Bible. Both Paul (1 Cor 1:10-17) and Peter (2 Pet 3:16) wrote about it. Hence the need for one Scripture. But difference of opinion does not mean that the Bible is not divinely inspired. There are a variety of reasons for different interpretations and understandings and denominations, and none of them are an indicator as to the inspiration of Scripture.

What would be an indicator as to the inspiration and truthfulness of Scripture is the cause of the rise of Christianity which cannot be so glibly dismissed--the actual physical resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Aardverk]

By choosing not to have faith in what the Bible says, the person indicates he's partial. Everyone has faith. If a person is an atheist, their faith says there is no God. ....... These presuppositions need to be suspended to at least try and understand where the Christian is coming from.

Davies

You are assuming that any person other than a Christian, is ‘choosing to place his faith in something’. Choosing to place your faith is a religious practice, not a secular practice. I have cautious ‘faith’ in the innate goodness of my fellow man but that is not ‘faith’ in the sense that you mean. Someone without religion or spiritual belief is in a very different world from someone choosing to live their life based on the presumed existence of God(s) or supernatural being(s). I am not an atheist but I certainly do not accept that it is valid for you to say that an atheists ‘faith’ says that there are no Gods. They simply do not believe that there are any real Gods in exactly the same way that you do not believe that Thor, Venus and 3,000 others are real Gods. It is not just a matter of your Christian faith that Thor and Venus etc do not exist, you do not believe in them because you have never seen any evidence of them and you have not chosen to have ‘faith’ in them. To the people who presupposed that Thor and Venus etc existed, they were every bit as real as Jesus Christ is to you. Their daily lives were filled with clear evidence of 'the Gods'.

You also say that everyone has faith but they do not have faith in the sense that you mean. Atheism is certainly not a faith, it is effectively the absence of faith. In an ideal world it would also be the absence of bias but the common human failing is that many atheists drift towards being anti-theists, apparently in frustration with their fellow man - theists.

If we go through life with presuppositions such as – there is a God and everything in the bible is true, it is pretty obvious that we will interpret things around us according to those presuppositions. If we could manage to live without presuppositions we could base our lives openly on the evidence which we see. You stated earlier that ‘creation’ was evidence of God but that is of course based on your presupposition and not on evidence. If we manage to avoid presuppositions we have to make judgments and not just accept everything we are told. In the absence of hard evidence we are left with ignorance or ‘the balance of probability’ and that is often a very difficult way to live. We humans hate uncertainty and make up all sorts of things to fill the gaps and make us feel more comfortable. For example, we made up 3,000 Gods, why not 3,001 or 3,003

As far as the accuracy of the Bible, the differences in versions, not to include modern day versions, is minimal.

The last figure I read was 18,000 differences between the KJV and the original texts. I'm afraid I can't substantiate that, it is just the figure that stuck in my memory.

 

[Mike]

Aardverk, I'm wondering what your motivation is in your ongoing argument against the authenticity of the Bible. Your body of work has been, on the whole, tempered with respect (IMO, anyway). But if you didn't have that, I don't know that I would allow this to happen. We do have our ToS which prohibits the attempt to discredit Christianity, so I'd prefer that you stepped back a little.

You don't go so far as to say we are deluded, but you're coming close. Just take care, is all that I'm saying.

Most people who are Brought to faith can talk about a time when it was folly to them. They weren't convinced through argument. Many can say there was a moment when it all "clicked", and the pieces fell into place. That transformation doesn't come from man, IMO.

So, what's your motivation? We're not going to argue you into believing in Scripture, and you're not going to to discredit it for us.

 

[Davies]

You are assuming that any person other than a Christian, is ‘choosing to place his faith in something’. Choosing to place your faith is a religious practice, not a secular practice.

I would have to disagree that placing faith in something is just a religious exercise, and I'll use your example.

I have cautious ‘faith’ in the innate goodness of my fellow man but that is not ‘faith’ in the sense that you mean.

Though you've stated, "that is not 'faith' in the sense that you mean,' yet, you say you have cautious belief in the innate goodness of man. How is man good? Compared to what? What definition do you have for good? Certainly your faith will dictate to you what is good? You do have a presupposition if you define what is good. Whether you define it by society's standards or something you just think, you are making a statement of faith. No one walks around without presuppositions.

I am not an atheist but I certainly do not accept that it is valid for you to say that an atheists ‘faith’ says that there are no Gods. They simply do not believe that there are any real Gods in exactly the same way that you do not believe that Thor, Venus and 3,000 others are real Gods.

In what I've bolded from your quote, you're saying atheists and I don't believe, and the only difference is the object we don't believe in. For an anyone to say there is no God, they have to have all knowledge. On the other hand, I don't have to have all knowledge to know there is a God. You could say I don't know there is a God, but that's different than saying there is no God.

It is not just a matter of your Christian faith that Thor and Venus etc do not exist, you do not believe in them because you have never seen any evidence of them and you have not chosen to have ‘faith’ in them.

The evidence of Thor compels me to believe he's a cartoon character. The evidence of the Bible and creation compels me to believe in Jesus.

To the people who presupposed that Thor and Venus etc existed, they were every bit as real as Jesus Christ is to you. Their daily lives were filled with clear evidence of 'the Gods'.

Thor and Venus appear real and not every bit as real as Jesus is to me. You might say that Jesus appears real to me and may not be true, but the question has to be, 'What is true?' Either Thor and Venus and Jesus are not true, one of them is true, but they can't both be true based on their claims.

If we go through life with presuppositions such as – there is a God and everything in the bible is true, it is pretty obvious that we will interpret things around us according to those presuppositions.

Take what the Bible says about you, and see if what it says is true. Before coming to faith in Jesus, this is exactly what happens in school and by what our parents teach us. We take what they say, and examine it to see if its true. The problem, I think, is the standard we decide on using to determine what's true. I think Christianity presents the right standard. This discernment has to be done on an individual level which is subjective, and we need external guidance to bring us to the truth, otherwise, we could never recognize what's true.

You stated earlier that ‘creation’ was evidence of God but that is of course based on your presupposition and not on evidence.

I would say creation is evidence of a Creator. In the Bible, God tells us it is reasonable for us to conclude He exists because of creation. Creation may not tell us who God is but that God is. Looking at history, I'd say an overwhelming majority of people have always believed in a god, or even millions of gods. Even in our day of technology, that statement still holds true.

If we manage to avoid presuppositions we have to make judgments and not just accept everything we are told.

I'd say if we could do this, we would come to believe Christianity's claims.

In the absence of hard evidence we are left with ignorance or ‘the balance of probability’ and that is often a very difficult way to live.

The Bible is hard evidence of who God is, not just that God exists. Again, if we dictate to God what He has to do in order for us to believe, we will sorely be disappointed.

We humans hate uncertainty and make up all sorts of things to fill the gaps and make us feel more comfortable. For example, we made up 3,000 Gods, why not 3,001 or 3,003

Because God has not showed Himself in the way we want, this could be the very reason why we have thousands of religions or gods. What makes Christianity all the more unpopular is it tells us who we are in truth, and it ain't pretty.

The last figure I read was 18,000 differences between the KJV and the original texts. I'm afraid I can't substantiate that, it is just the figure that stuck in my memory.

Let's say I grant that many differences, never the less, all Christians believe Jesus is God, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to pay for our sins, rose from the dead, and if we repent and put our faith in Jesus, we know we will be granted forgiveness, receive the righteousness of Jesus, and be accepted into Heaven when our bodies die.

- Davies

 

[Aardverk]

Aardverk, I'm wondering what your motivation is in your ongoing argument against the authenticity of the Bible. Your body of work has been, on the whole, tempered with respect (IMO, anyway). But if you didn't have that, I don't know that I would allow this to happen. We do have our ToS which prohibits the attempt to discredit Christianity, so I'd prefer that you stepped back a little.

I’m genuinely sorry if I have trod on anyone’s toes. Perhaps I have misunderstood the process. I had seen this particular thread primarily as a philosophical discussion on the nature of religion. The OP said,

"Religion in many ways is a placebo (with some potentially negative side effects like divisiveness, war, genicide, etc.) guised in the attire of a panecea that is THE ultimate cure for all of life's ills. It is man's greatest invention as it pertains to helping mankind cope with situations that are tough or seemingly impossible to deal with"​

After that generic introduction, which obviously could also be interpreted as an attempt to discredit religion and by extension, Christianity, other people introduced Christianity as an example and made statements that were questionable for use as examples in the generic sense. I felt that, all I was doing, was questioning their statements, not questioning Christianity. Perhaps it would have helped if I quoted them and then questioned their words but I didn't think that necessary and it interrupts the logical flow.

Christianity cannot be proven or disproven, it exists as a fact. Your own words earlier in this thread were,

Regardless, the Truth of scripture can be dismissed, and I believe very few people were argued into believing its authenticity. I believe in many cases, it's pride that stands in the way. I could give many reasons why I see scripture as authentic, but I only have one reason to believe it. This is because it has been impressed on my heart by the Holy Spirit; not because someone convinced me to submit.

I fully understand and respect that position. I was there once, standing alongside you but the Holy Spirit deserted me and it would be very wrong of me to pretend that had not happened. The reason I enjoy having discussions such as in this thread is that it inspires me, it makes me think and question my conclusions. I can’t, or at least I will not pretend to be a believer but in the many decades since I lost my faith I have never stopped trying to find it again.

You don't go so far as to say we are deluded, but you're coming close. Just take care, is all that I'm saying.

Please don’t mix me up with Richard Dawkins.

Most people who are Brought to faith can talk about a time when it was folly to them. They weren't convinced through argument. Many can say there was a moment when it all "clicked", and the pieces fell into place. That transformation doesn't come from man, IMO.

I understand that Mike. In my case it has worked the other way around. I started as a devout Christian, I would very happily argue from your point of view but one day it all “clicked†and I realized that I was starting to question the validity of a little bit here, a little bit there and the snowball started rolling out of control unravelling the universe that I thought I knew. Eventually I stopped calling myself a Christian and admitted to myself that ‘I know NOTHING’.

So, what's your motivation? We're not going to argue you into believing in Scripture, and you're not going to to discredit it for us.

I hope by now you understand my motivation. I have no intention of discrediting anything but the only way to get ideas and information from others is to ask questions and that will obviously include questioning people’s beliefs – I see no way to avoid that. Somewhere out there is a person with wisdom and the ability to put that wisdom into words that will affect me deeply – maybe it’s Davies! I have lived in hope of finding that person for many decades and my time is running out. If I can’t come to a Christian forum and ask questions about Christianity, where can I go? I’ve tried many churches but have never found the right person to talk to. I have tried prayer for decades but have never got an answer. This increasingly popular notion that people can have a personal relationship with God is a total mystery to me. If you have that relationship count yourself as lucky. You will understand though, because I do not understand it, that I question whether such personal relationships are genuine or imagined. I feel that is only a natural question and it is not intended to disparage or discredit anyone or anything.

Back to the OP about the nature of religion. Roughly 75% of the people in the world do not follow Christianity even though psychologists make the case that religion and/or a belief in a God is a natural human instinct - just like being afraid of the dark is a natural instinct. Whilst it was desperately worrying to me to leave my religion, I am now in that 75% of people who do not accept the bible as the inspired word of God. Whilst popularity and consensus proves absolutely nothing, the fact is that for almost 2,000 years the world has been dominated by Christians with God helping them along. Despite those huge advantages, only 25% of the world accept Christian teachings and that does make me question whether God had a hand in this religion and indeed in the creation of the bible. I do hope that you can see that as an explanation of my position and an open question and not as a criticism. There is something that I am missing and I am desperately trying to find it.

 

[Aardverk]

I must try to keep this to 'religion' and philosophy rather than Christianity as Mike is questioning my motives.

I would have to disagree that placing faith in something is just a religious exercise......

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity". I am using it one way, you are using it another so we might as well drop that one.

... you say you have cautious belief in the innate goodness of man. How is man good? Compared to what? What definition do you have for good? Certainly your faith will dictate to you what is good? You do have a presupposition if you define what is good. Whether you define it by society's standards or something you just think, you are making a statement of faith. No one walks around without presuppositions.

It is interesting that you still assume a presupposition but I rely instead on instinct. What is 'good' to me is what helps mankind OR perhaps helps my particular tribe. We have an instinct to help one another in much the same way that a herd of buffalo etc have an instinct to help one another when attacked by wolves etc. I don't know the buffalo's presuppositions or fully understand the motivation for his 'good' behavior but I recognize it as the same instinct that I have - preservation of the group. That is why I have faith in the innate goodness of man. The other reason is that I presume that they are basically the same as me - wanting others to be content.

This discernment has to be done on an individual level which is subjective, and we need external guidance to bring us to the truth, otherwise, we could never recognize what's true.

You have summarized my dilemma very well there Davies. "we need external guidance to bring us to the truth". I am not very good at being told what to think. It is one of my many failings.

I would say creation is evidence of a Creator. In the Bible, God tells us it is reasonable for us to conclude He exists because of creation. Creation may not tell us who God is but that God is. Looking at history, I'd say an overwhelming majority of people have always believed in a god, or even millions of gods. Even in our day of technology, that statement still holds true.

You have almost repeated the circular argument parodied earlier in this thread.

Historically, the overwhelming majority have believed in Gods. Thousands of them - let us say 3,000 for now. The fact is that we have an instinct to believe in all sorts of things that scare us, ghosts and ghouls, evil spirits living in the smoke and mist, witches, all sorts of things supernatural. This is partially demonstrated by the fact that people are still afraid of the dark for very good historical reason - it was an instinct which helped keep us alive. Some now point to a gene which makes us believe in Gods.

The next step is, we try to explain things to ourselves and having come up with a plausible answer we explain it to someone else and so on and so on. It ends up as a religious belief and our religion colors how we interpret the world. What part did 2,999 'Gods' have in the creation of those 2,999 religions?

 

[Aardverk]

I'm not sure this will be allowed 'Free'. You are taking me off-topic again. We are meant to be talking about the nature of 'Religion' not the history of the bible. I will try however to give non-contentious answers to your questions.......

This argument [discrepancies in the gospels] is continually brought up and I really don't know why. It is an argument that the Christian cannot win. If there are differences, then the accuracy is called into question, and by extension, veracity. If the gospels were identical in their recollection of detail, if there were no differences, veracity would still be called into question as it would appear the writers just copied from one another or colluded to write some made up story.

I only brought it up because claims were being made for accuracy and authenticity. You are obviously aware of the discrepancies but many people are not and may be misled by claims of accuracy.

The Bible is considered very accurate. Based on the thousands of texts available, quotes by early church fathers, etc., it can be determined with great accuracy what the original texts stated. Some say 99.6%,iirc.

This is the problem I was trying to balance out. Someone makes a statement such as yours and other people repeat it thinking it is true.

While I don't necessarily agree with what was done, one must take into consideration the seriousness of error within theology and the need to maintain orthodoxy. You more or less argue to this down below but yet ignore it here.

I presume you mean the consubstantial nature of God. Given the constant confusion that homoousian theory has caused over the centuries I think it is a shame that it was blown up into such a big tenet rather than just leaving it as a mystery. Non-Trinitarian churches make their case very well yet adherents were once widely tortured and executed as heretics. They are still not regarded as Christians by some.

Arguments started well before the Bible. Both Paul (1 Cor 1:10-17) and Peter (2 Pet 3:16) wrote about it. Hence the need for one Scripture. But difference of opinion does not mean that the Bible is not divinely inspired. There are a variety of reasons for different interpretations and understandings and denominations, and none of them are an indicator as to the inspiration of Scripture.

Yes indeed. It was rather more that just arguments it was lethal fighting between the various factions. Those fights were the very reason that Emperor Constantine insisted on the bible being compiled. My point was that it didn't work. It didn't bring unity, quite the reverse. As you are well aware, there are thousands of differing interpretations and many variations of that original agreed bible even though it was 'inspired by God' and intended to bring unity.

What would be an indicator as to the inspiration and truthfulness of Scripture is the cause of the rise of Christianity which cannot be so glibly dismissed--the actual physical resurrection of Jesus.

I'm sorry, I do hope I have not dismissed anything 'glibly'.

 

[jasoncran]

nothing new there. read the sages and they did the same, so that issue is also with judaism as well.

jesus quotes two sages alive at his time.

ye have heard it said that and eye for an eye is ..

he is quoting the rabbi that taught that retributive form of that. maximum punishment for the crime . and jesus was telling the jews what should be done instead of that.this is in reference to the romans forcing the jews to do certian deeds.

 

[Free]

I'm not sure this will be allowed 'Free'. You are taking me off-topic again. We are meant to be talking about the nature of 'Religion' not the history of the bible. I will try however to give non-contentious answers to your questions.......

lol Sorry. I just saw your post and responded without looking at what this topic was about. We'll leave it at this, other than a couple of responses I wanted to make (I'm not intending to get the last word in, I'm just wanting to clear up a couple of things).

This is the problem I was trying to balance out. Someone makes a statement such as yours and other people repeat it thinking it is true.

Just something to think about: considering the size of the Bible, even 0.4% could still contain a fair amount of discrepancies.

I presume you mean the consubstantial nature of God. Given the constant confusion that homoousian theory has caused over the centuries I think it is a shame that it was blown up into such a big tenet rather than just leaving it as a mystery. Non-Trinitarian churches make their case very well yet adherents were once widely tortured and executed as heretics. They are still not regarded as Christians by some.

By orthodoxy, I was referring to all Christian belief, not just the nature of God. And, yes, mysteries are sometimes best left as mysteries.

I'm sorry, I do hope I have not dismissed anything 'glibly'.

My apologies for directing that at you. I honestly do not believe you have done so. I was responding to you but it wasn't you I had in mind. I was thinking skeptics and atheists in general and I didn't have anyone specific in mind.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I only have one reason to believe it. This is because it has been impressed on my heart by the Holy Spirit; not because someone convinced me to submit.

Honest questions for all who feel this way:

1. How do you know that what you claim is true?
2. Is there an objective way to verify the involvement of the Holy Spirit?
3. How can it be demonstrated that the Holy Spirit you speak of is anything more than an imaginary entity?

 

[Davies]

Honest questions for all who feel this way:

1. How do you know that what you claim is true?
2. Is there an objective way to verify the involvement of the Holy Spirit?
3. How can it be demonstrated that the Holy Spirit you speak of is anything more than an imaginary entity?

Because of the gifts that God has given us, creation, conscience, and the Bible, we have been given the objective truth, and He expects us to put our faith in Him. The Bible tells us that a Christian is born of the Spirit, and that Holy Spirit would teach us all things. The Bible is the objective truth by which we understand the world, not the other way around.

Certainly you would use some form of standard to determine what is true. Non-believers tend to rely on science, but that's limited because most of what the scientific community poses is really just theory. They change their statement of faith all the time.

There's no getting around depending on God and trusting Him, the God of the Bible.

- Davies

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Because of the gifts that God has given us, creation, conscience, and the Bible, we have been given the objective truth, and He expects us to put our faith in Him.

How can you back up the above claims objectively? It sounds like you are simply declaring your opinion (which you are definately entitled to), but that opinion seems to lack a foundation of observable fact. You are but speculating as it pertains to the origins of creation, conscience, and definately the Bible.

The Bible tells us that a Christian is born of the Spirit, and that Holy Spirit would teach us all things. The Bible is the objective truth by which we understand the world, not the other way around.

First off, the Bible does not tel US that the HS would teach US all things. It records Jesus telling his select apostles that the HS would guide THEM, bring to THEIR rememberance the things he had showed them, and guide THEM into all truth. You er reading yourself into scriptures that speak not to you but rather to a people that lived some 2000 years ago who were awaiting a 1st century return of their king.
Additionally, the Bible is not completely objective. Any book that at times requires you to turn a blind eye to logic, observable data, history, and at times science is far from objective.

Certainly you would use some form of standard to determine what is true. Non-believers tend to rely on science, but that's limited because most of what the scientific community poses is really just theory. They change their statement of faith all the time.

There's no getting around depending on God and trusting Him, the God of the Bible.

And why is it that you determine the books of the Bible to be the standard of truth? Had you been born and raised in Iran, you likely would feel the same way about the Koran as you do about the Bible because that culture would have engrained its truthfulness and reliability in you from your childhood to the point that you likely would never question it.
The God of the Bible (omnimax: all knowing, all loving, sinless, perfect, etc), cannot logically exist as the creator of a world that is imperfect, full of sin, full of constant suffering, and doomed for destruction as described in the scriptures.

What you call a "changing of a statement of faith" is simply not that. What it is is acceptance of indisputable data that yields a different conclusion. In other words, it IS NOT FAITH BASED! It is going where the facts lead and not letting one's opinions, hopes, preconceptions, and desires get in the way of the facts.

 

[Davies]

First off, the Bible does not tel US that the HS would teach US all things. It records Jesus telling his select apostles that the HS would guide THEM, bring to THEIR rememberance the things he had showed them, and guide THEM into all truth. You er reading yourself into scriptures that speak not to you but rather to a people that lived some 2000 years ago who were awaiting a 1st century return of their king.

Why would the Holy Spirit not guide us into all truth? We have received the same Holy Spirit as did the early church. As a body of believers, we are one.

Ephesians 4:4-6
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you[a] all.

Additionally, the Bible is not completely objective. Any book that at times requires you to turn a blind eye to logic, observable data, history, and at times science is far from objective.

You're making a great point. You're using a standard to determine what truth is. The difference between you and the Christian is the Christian uses the Bible as his standard and you don't. Just because something doesn't appear logical, or observable, doesn't mean we throw a blind eye to it. Watch any documentary on the beginning of what we call creation on the History channel, and their words are filled with might, maybe, could be, and so on. What they are really saying is they don't know. How do you explain that Isaiah new the earth was round hundreds of years before it was scientifically proven? How do you explain the prediction of Jesus' crucifixion on the cross in Psalm 22. We have hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that came to pass which we can't just ignore or throw a blind eye. How do you explain away Jesus' resurrection and the successfull establishment of the Christian faith?

And why is it that you determine the books of the Bible to be the standard of truth? Had you been born and raised in Iran, you likely would feel the same way about the Koran as you do about the Bible because that culture would have engrained its truthfulness and reliability in you from your childhood to the point that you likely would never question it.

There are many people who grew up in Iran and have converted to Christianity.

The God of the Bible (omnimax: all knowing, all loving, sinless, perfect, etc), cannot logically exist as the creator of a world that is imperfect, full of sin, full of constant suffering, and doomed for destruction as described in the scriptures.

Because of your view described above, it clearly shows you don't understand the concept of what is good, and what is holy. Try and understand what these things are, not based on preconceived notions of what is good, but understand what the Bible says is good. Of course, we have freedom to disagree with that, but the Bible explains why this world is they way it is.

What you call a "changing of a statement of faith" is simply not that. What it is is acceptance of indisputable data that yields a different conclusion. In other words, it IS NOT FAITH BASED! It is going where the facts lead and not letting one's opinions, hopes, preconceptions, and desires get in the way of the facts.

This goes back to what standard we use to determine truth. Just because I believe what the Bible says, doesn't make Bible true. The same is true for the scientist. Just because he believes something to be true, doesn't make it true. The question is what is the truth. You believe one way, others believe differently. Just make sure you're right in the end, because if you're right(I would testify against), and the God of the Bible is not true, I'm thinking I don't have much to worry about. But if the God of the Bible is true(I would testify to), then we are all in big trouble, and we need to be saved. It's appointed once for man to die, then the judgment.

Hebrews 9:27-28
New King James Version (NKJV)
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

- Davies

 

[Mike]

Honest questions for all who feel this way:

1. How do you know that what you claim is true?
2. Is there an objective way to verify the involvement of the Holy Spirit?
3. How can it be demonstrated that the Holy Spirit you speak of is anything more than an imaginary entity?

ToT, your post here makes my point.

C.S. Lewis said one of the evidences of the Holy Spirit is when the veil is lifted and things settle comfortably on your heart that were complete nonsense before. It is very interesting (sadly) to me to read these words from you these days. I remember, not too long ago, when you were a warrior for Christ. We disagreed on some things, but I saw that disciple in you.

I've told people about "the new me" as a believer; how I cannot and do not understand the person I used to be. It's as though it is a different person completely that I once knew. When I read this post from you, I see a man who doesn't know that guy who used to walk with the Lord. You're asking questions as if the ability to remember why you believed what you believed is beyond your grasp. To me, and I hate that I'm saying this, but this seems to be evidence that the Holy Spirit isn't Leading you. You've covered your heart with that veil, and you aren't empowered by Him anymore.

As I said, absent the Holy Spirit, no one has the capacity to believe, even if they once did. This is tragic.

But that doesn't have to be the final chapter in your life story.